nihonkoku_shoukanfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:New World War/@comment-44671220-20191216110102
There has been a really big discussion about Japan getting a battleship ever since there was a reveal on how Japan is going to confiscate Grade Atlaster sister ship. Allow me to put my 2 cents into this matter. No, Japan doesn’t need a battleship. Even if the existence of a battleship is greatly beneficial to the Japanese fleet, its current doctrine and economic considerations couldn’t support it. Let’s consider the following factors: 1. Role of a battleship The first question is what does a battleship have to offer for the strategic needs for the JSDF. If we are talking about a modern day battleship, then the closest example to this would be the 1985 retrofitted Iowa-Class Battleship of the United States Navy. Recommissioned in the 1980s to deal with the threat of the emerging Soviet Kirov-Class Battlecruisers, the US hoped that bringing the highly-armoured battleships would allow them to have an advantage in anti-ship warfare. The Iowas have a few advantages over modern-day warships: # The Iowa has high combat endurance and is able to take punishments from saturated attacks as compared to the rest of modern-day warships. It has near-impenetrable armour. Even Soviet hypersonic missiles will have difficulty punching through their armour belts. Therefore, it is able to stay in the fight even when directly struck. # The Iowa’s signature 16 inch guns could literally destroy anything on sea when it hits its target, something that no modern 127mm guns are able to do. # With its new retrofits, the Iowa is capable of defending itself from incoming AShMs and is able to attack with missiles beyond-visual-range (BVR), thus making it compatible with modern day naval doctrines. However, the role of anti-ship combat has already been fulfilled by various platforms. Most Japanese destroyers, frigates and submarines have AShMs that are capable of attacking enemy ships BVR and has clearly successfully demonstrated in the recent battles against GVE vessels. Given the capabilities of a modernised battleship, it will literally do the same with its onboard AShM launchers. It won’t even need to use its 16 inch guns because it probably wouldn’t get in range anyway. The battleship also doesn't need armour because it is travelling in a battlegroup full of ships capable of intercepting aircraft and projectiles. If there is even the case where a battleship would even need to use its armour, then it probably means the entire fleet is already dead. Even then, the armour does not protect the battleship from being mission-killed or rendered combat ineffective. It is worth noting that the Iowa-Class battleships were recommissioned during the time when Vertical Launch System and AEGIS were not developed, produced and intergrated into the navy. Then there is the more popular argument of battleships being able to provide impressive shore bombardment support to help with naval invasions or act as a good off-shore support for inland expeditions. However, this too, has already been fulfilled by other supporting platforms. As clearly demonstrated, JMSDF’s helicopter carriers are easily able to bring that support through the deployment of attack helicopters. Offshore support can be easily fulfilled by cruise missile strikes from destroyers and submarines. The role of bombarding key installations and fortifications are already fulfilled by the multirole F-2s and the recently modified P-3 Orion patrol aircraft turned bombers. 2. Cost-Effectiveness First, Japan needs to get the infrastructure to dock, fit and repair a battleship - in this case a confiscated Yamato look-a-like from the GVE. But let’s give Japan the benefit of the doubt that it already has such infrastructure thanks to the presence of US supercarriers. Then, Japan will need to source out a contractor to start building components and parts specifically for the battleship. It will also need to produce munitions specifically for those 18 inch shells and all the other secondary guns. Then, Japan will need to start getting and training personnel to repair specifically the battleship and maintain the vessel to ensure she’s seaworthy for active duty. This means retraining engineers and shipbuilders to a niche expertise that only this battleship requires. Then, Japan will need to start considering how on earth are they going to overhaul this entire battleship to make her viable in modern-day naval warfare. There’s the option of just redoing the entire design of the hull just to fit VLS cells and all the electronic components that a modern vessel needs, but doing this might cripple the hull integrity of the battleship completely, and the costs of redoing the battleship will perhaps be beyond the estimated costs of the Zumwalt programme. For a more cost-efficient option, Japan would rather make-do with retrofits similar to the 1980 Iowa modernisation programme. Then they need to get 2,000 crews and train them specifically to man and operate the battleship, something which is most unfamiliar to the JMSDF personnel today. Adjusted with today’s inflation, the cost of commissioning a battleship is 1.8 billion dollars. The cost of refitting a battleship to modern-day standards is 425 million dollars. The costs of maintaining a battleship is 140 million per year. The latest JMSDF Atago-Class AEGIS vessel costs 1.48 billion dollars. That is almost twice the amount of a state-of-the-art destroyer capable of intercepting a ballistic missile. The costs of building, maintaining and putting a battleship on active duty is too much of a cost for Japan to benefit - a programme that puts constraints on Japan’s limited monetary, time and manpower resources. Considering that much of the things that the battleship has to offer has already been fulfilled by various other classes of ships, and considering that the threat that Japan is facing would be the more advanced Ravernal Empire, the battleship is but an overly expensive missile carrier, and it would have been more beneficial for Japan to invest in AEGIS vessels capable of intercepting intercontinental “core magics” from RE. It is noteworthy that the idea of getting an aircraft carrier is often compared to getting a battleship, but I’d argue otherwise. The role of an aircraft carrier vastly differs from that of a battleship. Whether Japan is going to get a battleship or not, it is still going to get a new aircraft carrier. The point of Japan, or any other major states getting an aircraft carrier isn’t because “battleship is obsolete because aircraft carrier exist” (although history did prove a point there), it is because of power projection. With technology advancing through the Cold War, the role of aircraft carriers have progressively transformed from a valuable asset in naval warfare to a strategic asset of national interests. On the seas, it is able to provide air supremacy and conduct saturated naval strikes. It is also able to conduct anti-sub operations. Beyond the seas, it is able to fulfill the role of extending air dominance and provide air support for ground forces. It is able to transport critical supplies and assets and even aid in humanitarian missions. Symbolically, it is a vessel that projects a nation’s power beyond its shores. Japan would see more use putting Grade Atlaster’s sister as a museum/ceremonial ship in Tokyo Bay for Japanese locals and foreigners to see than to put her on active duty.